Congresswoman Giffords shot in head in rampage...

[GreasyDogMeat]

As if it isn't depressing enough already, the nine year old girl killed in the massacre was born on 9-11-2001. Born on a day of senseless tragedy and killed nine years four months later in another senseless tragedy.

 

Also, all this talk of vitriol is getting more ridiculous as more info is released about the killer. He started stalking her 3 years ago in 2007 when he asked her a rambling incoherent question at a town hall meeting which she ignored infuriating him apparently. Well before the formation of the Tea-Party, but the libs will be desperate to pin this on the Tea-Party/Republican rhetoric.

 

Why the heck didn't the parents see something was wrong with their son? He had a tent in their backyard with some sort of satanic shrine with a skull on it, and the guy was incoherent to speak with.

Edited January 10, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[Enoch]

After 9-11 a considerable number of Washington liberals spent a lot of days naval-gazing in wonder as to why the jihadists hated America. They wanted to understand why they are so angry. Isn't it a wonder they have never spared a moment to wonder why the American people are angry? Why do conservative talk show hosts resonate so well with so many? I mean we're are talking about tens of millions of people. Those talk shows would not exist let alone be so fabulously succesful without that audience. Instead of lamenting how nasty the politcal dialogue has become why does no one ever ask why it has come to be like this? Perhaps the Washington "ruling class" should be wondering if they are antagonizing the people into anger rather than disparaging the folks who are saying aloud what most people seem to be thinking.

 

Apparently they did not learn the lesson of the 2010 election. Hopefully they will get a refresher in 2012.

 

Now here I go posting about politics in a thread about an instance that has nothing what so ever to do with poitics except that the victims were at a political function. But I do think Greasy is right about one thing, the knee-jerk government reaction on an incident like this is to go ape**** and crack down on everything in sight. That would be the worst thing they could do in a tense political climate.

I'm sorry, but 98% of that is either wholly insubstantiated or just makes no sense. The only people wondering why jihadists hated America were people who had never had a single foreign policy briefing or read a single book about south/central asian foreign policy. I'd hardly characterize such people as a "ruling class." The real ruling class has been getting CIA briefings for decades spelling out exactly why jihadists hated America. The surprise of 9/11 wasn't that their motivation was greater than we thought-- it was that their capabilities were greater than we thought.

 

And why do you assume that the powers-that-be aren't/weren't interested in understanding why anger-heavy extremism has been growing in signficance? Scads of studies have covered the subject over the past couple decades, both in scholarly poli-sci publications and in everyday newspapers and magazines. Opinions on the causes of these shifts in attitudes do vary, although it's not just a creature of the right-- the level of anger and involvment on the far left has crested as well, but they don't like to listen to the radio as much as diehard conservatives do. (Personally, I see a slow evolution. Heavily negative political campaigns really started rolling in the late 80s, and they worked. Iterate that over a decade or two, and combine it with some very public examples of regrettable behavior by public officials, and you get a much more cynical electorate. And a cynical electorate is one that is ready to reflexively believe the worst about their political opponents without looking too hard for confirmation. That's the kind of credulity that the popularizers of extremist rhetoric and conspiracy theories depend on. "Bush/Cheney is giving Iraq to Haliburton!" "Obama is raising our taxes to pay Muslim welfare queens!")

 

As for reflexive crack-downs, that really doesn't happen much in America, absent something on the 9/11 scale. Sure, talking heads will yammer about how such-and-such incident illustrates why their favorite policy hobbyhorse is such a good idea, but that's a long way from actual significant changes in policy. How long did it take between James Brady getting shot and the Act commonly commonly referred by his name being signed into law?

[Orogun01]

The real reason these things happen is because we let lunatics run around free in this country. You basically can not make someone get treatment if they don't want to. In addition, because of privacy laws, the mental institutions can't even inform the FBI to keep guns from the insane. Congress had hearings on this after the Virginia Tech massacre, but apparently being Congress they didn't actually fix anything.

They basically rely on the shops to judge the mental state of the buyer who hasn't been declared insane by the state because he hasn't undergone treatment. This is just another example of the government hoping that every state is capable of ruling themselves, but neither the state nor the federal government do anything to prevent events like this from happening. When they do they become a media frenzy game of hot potato to see where the blame lands and the problem continues unsolved. Deja Vu from Columbine, anyone?

[Walsingham]

@Enoch/GD

 

I obviously sit back and listen when Enoch is talking about these things because he's at the non-talking end of the horse, which in many ways is more informative than its mouth. However, while it's clear that there was a lot of stuff written about and briefed on extremism I'm not convinced it was taken seriously. There are always experts in trans-caucasian fox-hanging who are trying to argue we need a new Globesmasher 5000 to shoot murderbeams at trans-caucasia. My feeling is that jihadism was seen in this way. That without the Soviet Union backing groups as they did in the 1970s and 1980s then you'd get a dying off of activity.

~

 

I think the central problem is that to counter this sort of attack you need to make sacrifices. And first world polities simply don't want to make those sacrifices. They don't want to pay for mental care, and they don't want to surrender addditional degrees of protection from investigation and arrest. And they are entirely entitled to say so. What they aren't entitled to do is to complain when problems occur.

[mkreku]

If only the crowd would have had more guns, they could have defended themselves. I say give every nine year old their own handgun! It's constitutional after all.

[Raithe]

If only the crowd would have had more guns, they could have defended themselves. I say give every nine year old their own handgun! It's constitutional after all.

 

Well the guy who tried holding up a gun store in texas was stopped because the majority of customers were carrying...

[Wrath of Dagon]

The real reason these things happen is because we let lunatics run around free in this country. You basically can not make someone get treatment if they don't want to. In addition, because of privacy laws, the mental institutions can't even inform the FBI to keep guns from the insane. Congress had hearings on this after the Virginia Tech massacre, but apparently being Congress they didn't actually fix anything.

They basically rely on the shops to judge the mental state of the buyer who hasn't been declared insane by the state because he hasn't undergone treatment. This is just another example of the government hoping that every state is capable of ruling themselves, but neither the state nor the federal government do anything to prevent events like this from happening. When they do they become a media frenzy game of hot potato to see where the blame lands and the problem continues unsolved. Deja Vu from Columbine, anyone?

It's actually worse than that. The store can't judge anything, they check with the FBI computerized list of people not allowed to buy guns. The problem is even if someone is committed by court order to a mental institution, they're not reported to that list because of privacy laws. It takes a separate court order to do the report, but hardly anyone knows about that so it's almost never done. Add to that the liberal/conservative conspiracy not to treat the mentally ill but instead turn them out on the street, liberals because they are protecting their civil rights, conservatives because they don't want to pay for it.

[Walsingham]

Sucks to be loony, I guess.

[Calax]

The real reason these things happen is because we let lunatics run around free in this country. You basically can not make someone get treatment if they don't want to. In addition, because of privacy laws, the mental institutions can't even inform the FBI to keep guns from the insane. Congress had hearings on this after the Virginia Tech massacre, but apparently being Congress they didn't actually fix anything.

They basically rely on the shops to judge the mental state of the buyer who hasn't been declared insane by the state because he hasn't undergone treatment. This is just another example of the government hoping that every state is capable of ruling themselves, but neither the state nor the federal government do anything to prevent events like this from happening. When they do they become a media frenzy game of hot potato to see where the blame lands and the problem continues unsolved. Deja Vu from Columbine, anyone?

It's actually worse than that. The store can't judge anything, they check with the FBI computerized list of people not allowed to buy guns. The problem is even if someone is committed by court order to a mental institution, they're not reported to that list because of privacy laws. It takes a separate court order to do the report, but hardly anyone knows about that so it's almost never done. Add to that the liberal/conservative conspiracy not to treat the mentally ill but instead turn them out on the street, liberals because they are protecting their civil rights, conservatives because they don't want to pay for it.

Honestly? You're scaring me dagon. I'm technically in the catagory of the "unstable" and I've been in the acute psych ward of a hospital (Chicago VA). And honestly, putting somebody in an institution does NOTHING for their sanity. They're so worried about the possibility of what you might do that you can't do anything and they censor anything that might even be close to violence.

 

Hell, when somebody is declared insane to the point of being criminally non-culpable, it's more than likely they will never see the day that they get OUT of a mental institution. Seriously, people were put in a mental institution for 20+ years for simply shooting up a place that never even had anyone get hurt.

 

Mental health in the US is utterly broken.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Honestly? You're scaring me dagon. I'm technically in the catagory of the "unstable" and I've been in the acute psych ward of a hospital (Chicago VA). And honestly, putting somebody in an institution does NOTHING for their sanity. They're so worried about the possibility of what you might do that you can't do anything and they censor anything that might even be close to violence.

Depends on the type of mental illness. Definitely people who suffer paranoia are very dangerous, it makes them hostile and obsessed with guns. You're right to an extent that mental hospitals don't do anything since there's no real cure. However, the medications now available are generally quite effective in dealing with symptoms. The problem is no one makes sure that the patient takes them outside of the hospital once he's released, and since medications generally have side effects often the patient will stop taking them and become dangerous again. Also, a lot of people can't cope with their illness, and either have no one to look after them or refuse help. Those wind up living in squalor in the streets, and society just accepts that as normal.

 

Hell, when somebody is declared insane to the point of being criminally non-culpable, it's more than likely they will never see the day that they get OUT of a mental institution. Seriously, people were put in a mental institution for 20+ years for simply shooting up a place that never even had anyone get hurt.

 

Mental health in the US is utterly broken.

Unfortunately they usually don't get locked up until someone is already dead. Also to be criminally non-culpable it's not enough to be mentally ill, it's to be unable to distinguish right from wrong, just as an aside.

[Hurlshort]

I would probably turn to the parents more than the mental health industry here. It sounds like he had mental problems throughout his life, and his parents needed to help him with that much earlier. I am sure we will learn more, and I'm not looking to place full blame on them or anything, but I think they were in the best position to help him before he got this bad.

[Calax]

Honestly? You're scaring me dagon. I'm technically in the catagory of the "unstable" and I've been in the acute psych ward of a hospital (Chicago VA). And honestly, putting somebody in an institution does NOTHING for their sanity. They're so worried about the possibility of what you might do that you can't do anything and they censor anything that might even be close to violence.

Depends on the type of mental illness. Definitely people who suffer paranoia are very dangerous, it makes them hostile and obsessed with guns. You're right to an extent that mental hospitals don't do anything since there's no real cure. However, the medications now available are generally quite effective in dealing with symptoms. The problem is no one makes sure that the patient takes them outside of the hospital once he's released, and since medications generally have side effects often the patient will stop taking them and become dangerous again. Also, a lot of people can't cope with their illness, and either have no one to look after them or refuse help. Those wind up living in squalor in the streets, and society just accepts that as normal.

Basically the only way to ensure that somebody continues to take their meds is to always keep them as a dependent. So basically the mentally ill would need to always be in the states institutions and couldn't actually have a life. Why not just kill em and be done with it? There would be no way to make sure that the person took it out in the world as all you could do would just be a med count and you'd find piles of meds going into the trashcan.

 

Hell, when somebody is declared insane to the point of being criminally non-culpable, it's more than likely they will never see the day that they get OUT of a mental institution. Seriously, people were put in a mental institution for 20+ years for simply shooting up a place that never even had anyone get hurt.

 

Mental health in the US is utterly broken.

Unfortunately they usually don't get locked up until someone is already dead. Also to be criminally non-culpable it's not enough to be mentally ill, it's to be unable to distinguish right from wrong, just as an aside.

Oh stop... you have no clue what you're talking about. To be declared insane to the point of not responsible you have to literally totally disconnect from reality for the time that you perpetrated the crime, and have had it be completely spontaneous. That's why it's so hard and even those who DO have a mental illness get sent to prison rather than tossed to an institution, they have knowledge and semi-planned for their crimes.

 

We can't have a system where anyone who's mind falls into the "probably going to commit a crime" section gets institutionalized, if we did, we'd be breaking "Innocent until proven guilty" at the very least. This is the same reason why we can't have cops go into a gang and just cart them off to a prison before they do anything provable.

[Orogun01]

Basically the only way to ensure that somebody continues to take their meds is to always keep them as a dependent. So basically the mentally ill would need to always be in the states institutions and couldn't actually have a life. Why not just kill em and be done with it? There would be no way to make sure that the person took it out in the world as all you could do would just be a med count and you'd find piles of meds going into the trashcan.

Now Now, we can't kill the loonies or else we'd be Nazis. Mental Institutions deal with the aggressive as well those without family, the distinction is made between the criminally insane and the pathological. Most people aren't prepared to care for such ailments and a lot of them don't want to carry the burden. Since the mentally ill are unable to function properly without assistance, Institutions is an alternative to having them all out on the streets or running rampant.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Basically the only way to ensure that somebody continues to take their meds is to always keep them as a dependent. So basically the mentally ill would need to always be in the states institutions and couldn't actually have a life. Why not just kill em and be done with it? There would be no way to make sure that the person took it out in the world as all you could do would just be a med count and you'd find piles of meds going into the trashcan.

No, you require them to check in once a month or so, to check on their condition. Those who couldn't or wouldn't comply can be placed in a supervised environment, it doesn't have to be a hospital, just a special residential project.

 

Oh stop... you have no clue what you're talking about. To be declared insane to the point of not responsible you have to literally totally disconnect from reality for the time that you perpetrated the crime, and have had it be completely spontaneous. That's why it's so hard and even those who DO have a mental illness get sent to prison rather than tossed to an institution, they have knowledge and semi-planned for their crimes.

 

We can't have a system where anyone who's mind falls into the "probably going to commit a crime" section gets institutionalized, if we did, we'd be breaking "Innocent until proven guilty" at the very least. This is the same reason why we can't have cops go into a gang and just cart them off to a prison before they do anything provable.

Your response isn't really relevant to what I said, and anyway I already explained institutionalization is not usually necessary if proper treatment and follow up is provided. People who remain dangerous to society should absolutely be institutionalized, this is different from criminal law.

 

I would probably turn to the parents more than the mental health industry here. It sounds like he had mental problems throughout his life, and his parents needed to help him with that much earlier. I am sure we will learn more, and I'm not looking to place full blame on them or anything, but I think they were in the best position to help him before he got this bad.

This is a tremendously difficult issue for people to deal with, for one thing you can't make someone get treatment if they don't want to. Also the worse symptoms of schizophrenia often appear around age 20 or so, when parents can't do much anymore, either legally or practically. Edited January 11, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Monte Carlo]

I sympathise with anybody who has suffered from mental illness and am aware that it is exactly that... an illness. I deplore the stereotypes about the subject.

 

But an illness can preclude certain activities. A blind person is unlikely to be allowed to fly a plane and a person with a back injury is unlikely to be found carrying bricks up a ladder. It stands to reason that a person who has an illness that can interfere with their reasoning should be barred from possessing a firearm.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Apparently some countries do have a better handle on this issue: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/loughner-and-...s-mentally-ill/

[Calax]

Basically the only way to ensure that somebody continues to take their meds is to always keep them as a dependent. So basically the mentally ill would need to always be in the states institutions and couldn't actually have a life. Why not just kill em and be done with it? There would be no way to make sure that the person took it out in the world as all you could do would just be a med count and you'd find piles of meds going into the trashcan.

No, you require them to check in once a month or so, to check on their condition. Those who couldn't or wouldn't comply can be placed in a supervised environment, it doesn't have to be a hospital, just a special residential project.

and this is where the slippery slope comes in. You have them check in once a month... then another person goes and kills others with a mental illness, then it's once a week... etc.

 

Also, right now we can't even keep an eye on foster families and make sure they aren't abusing their charges, you really want to add another domestic support to the already over worked, understaffed, underpaid social services sector?

Oh stop... you have no clue what you're talking about. To be declared insane to the point of not responsible you have to literally totally disconnect from reality for the time that you perpetrated the crime, and have had it be completely spontaneous. That's why it's so hard and even those who DO have a mental illness get sent to prison rather than tossed to an institution, they have knowledge and semi-planned for their crimes.

 

We can't have a system where anyone who's mind falls into the "probably going to commit a crime" section gets institutionalized, if we did, we'd be breaking "Innocent until proven guilty" at the very least. This is the same reason why we can't have cops go into a gang and just cart them off to a prison before they do anything provable.

Your response isn't really relevant to what I said, and anyway I already explained institutionalization is not usually necessary if proper treatment and follow up is provided. People who remain dangerous to society should absolutely be institutionalized, this is different from criminal law.

But what constitutes a danger to society? Is my bipolar which sometimes leads to thoughts of massacres dangerous to society? Am I any more dangerous than say some dumb idiot who drinks to much? After all the guy who drank to much has a higher chance than I to kill people.

[Wrath of Dagon]

and this is where the slippery slope comes in. You have them check in once a month... then another person goes and kills others with a mental illness, then it's once a week... etc.

Slippery slope arguments can be applied to anything. Doing something is still vastly superior to doing nothing.

 

Also, right now we can't even keep an eye on foster families and make sure they aren't abusing their charges, you really want to add another domestic support to the already over worked, understaffed, underpaid social services sector?

So the solution is what? Don't check on the children and let the insane run loose? A civilized society has certain responsibilities. The fact that we're not meeting them in one area isn't a justification for anything.

 

But what constitutes a danger to society? Is my bipolar which sometimes leads to thoughts of massacres dangerous to society? Am I any more dangerous than say some dumb idiot who drinks to much? After all the guy who drank to much has a higher chance than I to kill people.

I'm not a psychiatrist so I can not give you a general answer. I do know that leaving paranoid schizophrenia untreated is not an option, that has been proven over and over again. Edited January 11, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Dagon, my point was that the only way you could even try to do something is if you were willing to spend millions/billions on the subject.

 

And your proof honestly, is entirely anecdotal. You see only the % of crimes that is committed within the realm of the newsday. NOT an accurate view of the problem.

[Walsingham]

Slippery slope arguments can be applied to anything. Doing something is still vastly superior to doing nothing.

 

Not true of circumcision.

[Nepenthe]

And your proof honestly, is entirely anecdotal. You see only the % of crimes that is committed within the realm of the newsday. NOT an accurate view of the problem.

Right on the money.

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://kotaku.com/5731751/accused-tucson-s...-aggression-247

[213374U]

He also seemed to wonder, perhaps randomly, about what life would be like at 60, or why someone who says they would go on a date with him never does.

Okay, so like, I think I might have a hypothesis here:

 

 

Probably being an angry crank with terrible grammar doesn't help either. Yeah, life can be cruel like that. I mean, I'm no Adonis... but I do have eyebrows. Good thing that 99% of all angry basement-dwelling virgins don't have what it takes to turn their online fantasies into actual deeds, otherwise we'd be in some serious ****.

 

Also: Tea Party theories about how this was a leftist loony trying to make them look bad are fun stuff.

Edited January 12, 2011 by 213374U

[Tigranes]

Classic tactic of touching up photos of serial killers to make them look crazier, uglier, less humane. I don't know if his eyebrows were shaved off already, but give the man a suit, natural lighting a bit of touch up and he'll look just like many other Ugly But Perfectly Fine Members Of Society.

 

It's good that we are so eager to judge and mock others on appearance when it's safe to do so, though.

[Walsingham]

Classic tactic of touching up photos of serial killers to make them look crazier, uglier, less humane. I don't know if his eyebrows were shaved off already, but give the man a suit, natural lighting a bit of touch up and he'll look just like many other Ugly But Perfectly Fine Members Of Society.

 

It's good that we are so eager to judge and mock others on appearance when it's safe to do so, though.

 

I got the impression from somewhere that he shaved his own eyebrows off.

 

On which note, I don't see anything wrong with mocking the stupid prick. Maybe if all we ever said about mass murderers was that they were pathetic losers then you wouldn't get copycat wannabes.